Rockbox mail archive

• Next message: Fred Maxwell: "RE: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!"
• Previous message: TP Diffenbach: "RE: strncat missing?"
• In reply to: mr.escape_at_gmx.de: "RE: The future"
• Next in thread: mrlipring: "Re: The future"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

mr.escape_at_gmx.de wrote:

> How god is better than the original. If a low bitrate version of a file is
> indistinguishable from the original (except by "acoustically challenged"
> people), why do we need more bits or what is the benefit of artificially
> enlarge the compressed file?

The low bitrate files were not indistinguishable from the original and that
shows in the fact that WAV got the highest ratings compared to the
compressed files at all three tested bitrates. Were there more bits, MP3
might have become indistinguishable from the original as might have Ogg or
any of the other formats.

Regards,
  Fred Maxwell

• Next message: Fred Maxwell: "RE: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!"
• Previous message: TP Diffenbach: "RE: strncat missing?"
• In reply to: mr.escape_at_gmx.de: "RE: The future"
• Next in thread: mrlipring: "Re: The future"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]